FW: Graphic take on reg/rep and global search scenario

["Petit, John" <jpetit@kpmg.com>]

FYI. Here is an interesting exchange that I had with Scott Neiman. The
"spider walk architecture" is updated from the previous diagram that I sent
out.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nieman, Scott [mailto:Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 11:46 AM
To: 'Petit, John'
Cc: ebxml-regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Graphic take on reg/rep and global search scenario


Hi John,

The concept of registry of registries is an absolute real need.  I believe I
may have stated that in a prior thread, however, who and how is yet to be
determined.  I may have mentioned that it could be as simple as a Yahoo
search, and perhaps some of the specifications such as Rich Site Summary
(RSS) could help the Yahoos of the world index these registries.

At this point the ebXML Registry are going to support a number of different
classification schemes based on the type of information being stored.  The
schemes will allow browsing (left window pane hierarchical views, like
Exploder, err, Explorer), searching and validation of submitted items.  A
Guest User could pull up an existing scheme to browse references to existing
repository items that relate to that scheme or allow the construction of a
complex query.

I believe that indexing alone (which I hear some people are promoting) is
insufficient, as it does not provide the concept of inter-relationships
between data elements that a classification schema would (e.g., data model,
class diagram, DTD).  Perhaps with the newer concept-based engines (agent
technology), one could index items such as models and DTDs, and propose a
"straw-person" classification scheme if one did not exist. However, someone
such as the RA should work to harmonize  them such that browsing could be
accomplished and actually retrieve something.

I put your PowerPoint (117Kb) on the ebXML reg-rep project team working page
as:
http://www.ebxml.org/working/project_teams/registry/SpiderWalk.ppt

Again, could you help by identifying where you think this needs to go into
the document?

Regards, 
Scott



-----Original Message-----
From: Petit, John [mailto:jpetit@kpmg.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 11:43 AM
To: 'Nieman, Scott'
Subject: RE: Graphic take on reg/rep and global search scenario


Hi Scott,

I just wanted to put this scenario in my own way - to make sure that I
understood it. I feel that it is important for these concepts to be
portrayed in many different ways so that we can communicate the basics of
ebXML effectively to others (unfortunately most people do not yet read UML).
I am in the process of making a general report on ebXML and its direction
for KPMG and our clients. I will try to illustrate the essential aspects of
ebXML.

So do you agree that the only way to do comprehensive searches in an ebXML
model with independent registries is to have a registry of registries? It
seems to make sense that in dealing with so much data, that a multilevel
approach is the only way to organize the global database. Now the question
becomes how does a user browse for the information that they need. Currently
search services have broad categories to search upon (automobiles, clothing,
insurance, etc.). ebXML will be based on business codes (like the UNSPSC).
So, do we have these categorizations in the registry, so that a user can
choose a schema to search upon (or do cross schema searches based on common
core elements). Otherwise, if the schemas are stored in the repositories
only, then how will a user find the proper schema with which to initiate
their search in the first place?! 

Please forward this out to the reg/rep list. The disclaimer is automatically
attached to my mail, so ignore it. I would love to refine this diagram (and
make others) with your input. 

Cheers, JP

-----Original Message-----
From: Nieman, Scott [mailto:Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:27 AM
To: 'Petit, John'
Subject: RE: Graphic take on reg/rep and global search scenario


Hi John, I am not certain if this is intended to be a response to the
document, or whether you are just looking for feedback.  I believe that our
UML model currently includes the scope of what your document covers.  It
does not explicitly state the need for registry of registries, but the
search and retrieval aspects are all in scope, and could be implemented by
the <<Service>> Query Service package and/or the <<Application>> Business
Application package. Maybe a combination of the two; Parts 2-4 will cover
that in detail I am sure. 

We did not cover the scope of the types of artifacts that could be stored
within a repository, but any "type" is possible, including associated XSL
documents (as you state), as well as actual software components or browser
plug-ins that could implement ebXML interfaces for a registered business
process.  The model is currently very flexible regarding content, but the
B2B interactions will be concrete specifications.

I would encourage 1) your involvement with the registry/repository project
team in developing our specifications as you obviously have a few opinions
on this topic, and 2) an official response from you if feel that we need to
specify the "registry of registries" concept (please forward that to
Joe.dalman@tiecommerceusa.com).  Please indicate where you think it would
fit in the document.  

Thanks!
Scott
PS.  Is this your standard disclaimer below? I was thinking of forwarding
this to the reg-rep list however, it seems that I am not allowed to do so.
Most people silence these messages when communicating to standards
organizations. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Petit, John [mailto:jpetit@kpmg.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 4:18 PM
To: 'Nieman, Scott'
Subject: Graphic take on reg/rep and global search scenario



*


*****************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorized. 

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.         
*****************************************************************************

Spider Walk Architecture2.ppt